Trigger Warning Label that may be seen on some sites.

In the article Better Online Living Through Content Moderation by Melissa King, King argues that modes of controlling the ability for online content to reach certain individuals or an audience that could be potentially harmed by anxiety triggering digital content is extremely helpful and necessary for stopping the effects of abuse: “Content control is helpful in limiting the worst of these [cyber] attacks, which themselves can cause PTSD if severe or long-term enough. While using content control features is not guaranteed to stop the effects of abuse, they do help and their use should not be disparaged and discouraged” (King). King goes on to articulate and provides rebuttals to some of the arguments formed against her point of view on the matter, focusing three counter arguments: the Exposure Theory counter that some triggering web content seen by those with PTSD has the same effect as a psychological treatment process of showing triggering images or sounds to a patient with PTSD in a controlled environment to help the anxiety ridden patient rid of their anxiety: “Exposure Therapy is not about having random internet strangers hurl insults and threats at someone with the hope they somehow come out more mentally durable. Without controlled exposure, someone suffering from PTSD is likely to have their trauma magnified rather than reduced when faced with triggering content” (King). The second argument articulated by King is one where those blocked by massblocklists claim “defamation for statements and opinions that they did not make” (King). King replies that these claims cannot possibly hold up when blocklists make its filtration of content methodology clear and those blocked have been blocked because the flirtation system picked up triggering web content from their modem. Thirdly, King rebukes the argument that online bullying or triggering content are simply words on the screen without any real tangible effect or any valid legal ramifications because cyber attacks or exposure to triggering content (especially when over a prolonged period of time)  have been proven to have lasting negative effects, and threatening, stalking, and other forms of cyber attacks are in fact illegal in most states.

A cartoon depiction of cyber-attacking and its  effects.

King explains the discouragement of forms of online protection is a show of inadequate human empathy and the proven lasting effects online triggers is why there remains a necessity for content control. Admitting that a generalized approach to the problem (large-scale censorship of certain online triggers) wouldn’t work, King still calls for solution in the stead of complacency for violence online:”On a personal level, nobody has a responsibility to weather outright harassment, and should be allowed and encouraged to mitigate what they can not handle. Telling people otherwise is complicity in a system of violence against marginalized people: anti-content control rhetoric supplants widely-available psychological and sociological facts for misinformed opinions that are not only insufficient for helping others manage their own mental state, but offer wholly inadequate solutions for increasingly pervasive and harmful patterns of online abuse” (King).